The Economic Interpretation

On the Bill Moyers Show the other day, the political commentator Eric Alterman revealed an interesting facet of political dialogue on the broadcast media of our country:

 

Do you know who the most frequently booked guest on "Meet The Press" was this year? Ex-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Do you know how often Nancy Pelosi, the actual Speaker of the House was on "Meet The Press" this year? Zero. Do you know how many times all the other living ex-Speakers of the House were on "Meet The Press" this year? A grand total of zero.

 

Quite properly Alterman complains about the appropriateness of this behavior by U.S. broadcast media.  

Newt Gingrich has no position, and yet the mainstream media has embraced him as a responsible spokesman for a position where he says the President- This is not Rush Limbaugh. This is not Bill O'Reilly. He says the President of the United States cares more about the rights of terrorists than he does protecting the American People. Now, does any sensible person believe that? No. But that is driving the narrative in the mainstream media. Not on Fox.

The host, Bill Moyers, then asked the reasonable question, Why?  Why do news outlets in the United States give overwhelming coverage to propaganda-spouting shills with a record of prevarication and no current authority, while eschewing the testimony of responsible spokemen for the government in power?

BILL MOYERS: Give me your explanation of why you think NBC, GE, and David Gregory constantly ask Newt Gingrich on and not Nancy Pelosi?

ERIC ALTERMAN: I think because the right wing media, Fox, the "Wall Street Journal", "The Weekly Standard", et cetera, et cetera, the Heritage Foundation, they have been so successful at defining the terms of the debate that the mainstream media accept their definitions of the issues and the parameters of discussion without even knowing they're doing it. And this infection has been going on for decades. And when the White House tried to take it on, in the form of taking on Fox, the media reacted, "Oh my God, you're attacking a sister network." That was the phrase of one of the ABC correspondents. They should recognize that there are some people doing honest journalism and some people doing propaganda. And those people doing propaganda should be shamed.

That is, to translate into plain speech for a moment, Eric Alterman answers 'Why?' with 'I have no idea.  They otta be ashamed o' themselves.'

That's inherently an unsatisfying answer, particularly when we are discussing a crucial part of political life in the United States for the past several decades.  WHY have all the broadcast media adopted the viewpoint of the Right Wing Propaganda Machine?  WHY do television reporters, radio hosts, and large-circulation newspapers all repeat conservative falsehoods without challenge?

There is a simple explanation.  Alterman chooses not to invoke it, but it is very likely applicable.  Because they are the mouthpieces of the wealthy, that's why.  In the memorable phrase of Mark Twain, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."  In a more straightforward way, without all the negatives:  they believe what they're paid to believe.

It is the Economic Interpretation of human behavior.  Political commentators, I imagine, are loath to make use of a method of historical investigation made famous by Karl Marx, and so declare the situation a deep mystery (or, as in the immediate instance, a "shame").  It is so much more refreshing to find very prominent economists willing to entertain that notion.  Powerful economic elites direct the political fortunes of many, if not most, countries.  For a striking example of such honesty, notice how the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund Simon Johnson, writing in the May, 2009 Atlantic Monthly, describes countries in economic difficulties -- explicitly including the United States today -- in just such terms as Alterman avoids:

Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason -- the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks.  Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit -- and, most of the time, genteel -- oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are the controlling shareholders [emphasis added -- MM].

 

In its depth and suddenness, the U.S. economic and financial crisis is shockingly reminiscent of moments we have recently seen in emerging markets . . . .  Just as in emerging-market crises, the weakness in the banking systme has quickly rippled out into the rest of the economy, causing a severe economic contraction and hardship for millions of people.

But there's a deeper and more disturbing similarity : elite business interests -- financiers, in the case of the U.S. -- played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse.  More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive.  The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.

Or as Senator Dick Durbin said recently about the wealthy bankers striding through the halls of Congress, "They frankly own the place."

Face the fact, in other words: this country, just as many others, is a functional oligarchy.  The interests of the wealthy are the only ones to be considered.  They own the television, radio, and newspaper outlets, and their employees foster their own job security by promoting the view that what's good for the wealthy is good for the country.  Despite massive evidence to the contrary.